SCOTUS accepts first major 2nd Amendment Gun case in over a decade - NY State Rifle & PA v. Corlett

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Great news!!!!



From the article:


"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment," the court said in an order.

The state requires license applicants to show that "proper cause exists" for a person to have one. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that the law is constitutional.

New York is among eight states that limit who has the right to carry a weapon in public. The others are: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.."


This is a case we should win with a 6-3 majority on the court hopefully.


The case is called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett and pertains to having a proper need to acquire a permit to carry a pistol outside of the home.


I'm very hopeful with the current make up of the court that we get a positive pro-gun ruling.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...hts-appeal-concealed-carry-handguns-in-public

Screenshot_20210426-094844_Twitter.jpg

Screenshot_20210426-095335_Fox News.jpg
 
Last edited:
I wonder how they can honor scalia's memory and the Heller ruling, while still prohibiting concealed carry in NYC.
 
This is going to be a big decision. It will not just affect NY state. It will have some effect on all ‘May issue’ states and might even have bearing on the recent 9th Circuit appeal ruling upholding HI’s law against open carry. That case was brought because HI does not issue CC permits even though they are legal in HI. If SCOTUS rules that the NY refusal to issue permits it could put HI in a position where it will have to begin issuing them.

I am optimistic that the 6 conservative justices will strike down the NY law. The rational for that lies in Scalia’s Heller decision in which establishes that the right to defend oneself is inherent. Heller decided against DC law preventing people from having guns in their homes because CC permits were not part of the original case. But Heller is so firm that the right of self defense is everyone’s right and can only be denied for certain reasons. Those reasons are age, mental condition, felony conviction. I am hoping for a big win in this case.
 
https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-takes-up-major-nra-backed-gun-rights-case_3791388.html

The case is: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Keith Corlett, No. 20-843.

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to take up a major, National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit that challenges a New York law restricting an individual from carrying a concealed handgun in public.

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment,” reads a brief order (pdf) from the high court on Monday.
 
Good to see the court engaging in discussion on the "black sheep" amendment.

It's been more than 10 years since a "major" 2A case was taken up by the Supreme Court.
 
I just read info about the case at Scotusblg.com. Here is an interesting element about the justices narrowing the case.
After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The ruling will likely be a landmark decision like Heller..
This is the URL: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/court-to-take-up-major-gun-rights-case/
 
I know that we are a nation of laws and that SCOTUS has the final say of the law but what if SCOTUS is wrong? At one early time in our history, the King of England dictated our laws and we decided that we did not agree. In turn in 1861, the Confederacy decided that they did not agree, and so on thru history. Is there really a Supreme anything if enough people disagree? In my mind if enough disagree, then who really has the final say? I am confident that I have an absolute right to defend my life without permission from anyone, I am confident that there are others that have the same belief. As some may forget, The Constitution was established from a grand disagreement and, we may have to disagree again.
 
Seems a bit convoluted for SC to tell the challenger what question to ask. I’m glad they are taking the case but it seems odd.

Decision verbiage will be key to this one. It may be a win, it may be a loss, or it may be a mixed bag where you get the W but end up paying dearly for it. It’s all in the way that the verbiage reads.
 
Not going to look for the link again but Politico is pretty sure the Democrats have abandoned court packing, so that's that.
 
GEM said:
Not going to look for the link again but Politico is pretty sure the Democrats have abandoned court packing, so that's that.
Click to expand...
I just read through this one at lunch. It specifically talks about a few key folks and the swing state dems as a group being against court packing. It does seem like a dead deal. Thankfully so, because the last thing we need is for the SC to become a political merry-go-round that is constantly expanding and growing to fit some agenda whether it be political, ideological, or some other stump upon which you can get a group of legal beagles to congregate for their version of the greater good.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...tate-dems-come-out-against-court-packing/amp/
 
SC will have to take up the issue that seemed resolved by Heller & McDonald--that Strict Scrutiny is required for any law affecting the 2nd. Which is another important part of this question.

Heller affirmed an individual and not assembled group right, it also introduced a notion of "commonly used" too, meaning that the arms in question could not be restricted (meaning no discrimination of, say, handguns in favor of long arms).
McDonald gave us applicability in all the States, and the Strict interpretation requirement.

So, it looks like a specific polity would have to make a distinct and clear case that said polity was safer without firearms than with. Otherwise denying carry permits would be denying rights.

Under Strict Scrutiny, it will be hard to defend a "permit process" that does not actually issue permits.

Which will be a very big deal in the Probably-Not Issue States. (Mind they will probably just increase the requirements/standards for issue--which will be a different lawsuit.)
 
Limiting the issue to the 2A does away with procedural issues and kicking the can down the road. It's like the super bowl, only question is which team will win.

Although the 6-3 majority is hopeful, the court's number one priority is always it's own legitimacy.
 
Is this the one where the case was filed in court then New York tried to change things so the case wasn’t meaningful? I could see SCOTUS taking it to say “Uhm no. You can’t change your mind and hope we’ll go away, because when we do you’ll just change it again”
 
DMW1116 said:
Is this the one where the case was filed in court then New York tried to change things so the case wasn’t meaningful? I could see SCOTUS taking it to say “Uhm no. You can’t change your mind and hope we’ll go away, because when we do you’ll just change it again”
Click to expand...


Nope, they dismissed that case because NY changed the law.
 
I think people may be overly optimistic about this case. Narrowing the scope to address whether self defense is a valid reason for concealed carry may be more easily denied the justice pro-second amendment groups think is deserved. If the case was to determine this actually is a violation of second amendment rights and resulted in requiring the application of strict scrutiny to such violations, that would open the floodgates to new cases nationwide against almost every local gun control law. As much as I might personally hope for that outcome, I expect Roberts to guide the court to some squishy middle ground where the state has to come up with new justification for their actions while essentially leaving everyone else in status quo. Remember there have been long standing prohibitions against carrying of concealed dangerous and unusual weapons which no one thought was wrong even at the time of the country's founding when the bill of rights was written.
 
AlexanderA said:
The impact of the case is that it could convert "may issue" (wherever it exists) to "shall issue." Obviously this is huge.

I would rather they took up the constitutionality of the NY SAFE act.
Click to expand...



Why?
 
Carl N. Brown said:
Sounds like NY assault weapon owners decided the SAFE act was null and void.
Complained has been minuscule
Click to expand...
Except that it's the prototype for other states. Here in Virginia, we barely missed having our own SAFE act (only worse) last year. At least, in this year's governor's race, the leading candidate (McAuliffe) is pledging to ban the sale of "assault weapons" rather than their mere possession. This is considered to be a "centrist" position. That's why the Supreme Court needs to speak on these sorts of bans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Texas joins coalition seeking Supreme Court clarity on Second Amendment rights
Replies
1
Views
303
CapnMac
CapnMac
W
  • Locked
Supreme Court Takes Gun Case
Replies
1
Views
654
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
A
  • Locked
Landmark 2nd Amendment victory at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen!!!
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
7K
Insignificant bill
Insignificant bill
A
  • Locked
How long can Pro-2nd Amendment folks withold 2nd Amendment cases to SCOTUS?
Replies
17
Views
2K
anchorman
A
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS to discuss case that could expand Second Amendment rights on Friday
Replies
14
Views
2K
JN01
JN01
Back
Top